"After receiving feedback from the Infinity community regarding last week’s events, we have decided to release the FAQ projects that we have been working on since September 2018. You’ll see them appear throughout the next months: 1. We will clearly explain in a transparent way what the FAQs are for Corvus Belli, their creation process, and the criteria we use to include a rule. This information will be published before the end of February. 2. We are fully committed to updating the FAQs every 3 months. Therefore, the next update will take place on April 11th. 3. The FAQs will be released in a new and flexible format, very similar to the one used in Aristeia!. These changes will arrive with the July update. 4. We’ll create a working group consisting of Corvus Belli staff members, Warcors, and other collaborators with the aim of discussing, reporting, reviewing, and helping in the FAQs updates, errata and other issues. The decisions of the group will be taken into account in Corvus Belli's strategy moving forward. We want to thank the whole community for their support and suggestions. We will continue working, listening and improving to keep making the best wargame for all of you. Thanks again! " I think these are reat News! Thank you for this update
I think this is a better and more transparent system. I'm interested to see how much community engagement and what kind will actually go into this and how it will make it into the FAQs. Although, I think some people will still be unhappy as some FAQs just simply can't be answered.
So.... they had to shut down Rogue Warcor groupe to actually do the same thing but with a longer time schedule? I know personally some of the members of "Rouge Warcor FAQ Grouppe" - some of them are real hardcore players. I doubt there are any similar among CB staff. + It is not the FAQ infinity needs, but some massive rework to streamline the whole game. Why not to put effort on some tournament ruleset, while some Warcor Community will do the dirty FAQ work? Fixing holes, with plates which has holes won't stop ship from sinking. The FAQ job is just MASSIVE. There are so many little "holes", so many exclusions, that if you even describe them all - there is no human head who would be able to fit it inside and play without mistakes. Do CB realises that they're doing a game which no one can play without a mistake? Did CB put an effort to at least read some battle reports from their Interplanitario events? Where top players do not know how to solve rules issue (or just didn't know some of the rules) and judge makes a solution which is after considered doubtful here, among forum community? And one more thing... why now? Why this FAQ announcement happened now? They were not aware of a problem? I think, CB was aware of a problem. Since N3 was published and first questions were asked in rules section. But they didn't react accordingly, as only sold miniatures are taken into account. So, go ahead, buy more of shiny Invincible armies, with more and more untested rules and maybe, people will finally realise, that it is not a nice miniature they are buying, but some spark, some idea put in it. And that idea taste as shit, because it was done in a rush, without playing the actual game, without knowing well own product. Dear CB, JUST STOP DOING new rules! You're already have a massive ruleset, you can combine so many "tasty" things... Only thing you're need is to read and test what you already have. Everything above is my and only mine angry and emotional scream as I was quite sad after Warcore Faq was shutdown. There was some work put into it, and shutting down smth while you do not have a better solution is not an option in my opinion.
I voted "thank you Koni", but my real feelings are closer to "what took you guys so [expletives deleted] long?!?"
My guess is this has been in the works for more than half a year, but the surrounding issues with the Rogue FAQ (both in terms of quality of some of the answers and in the announcement thread) made them forced to publish the time schedule.
While I would be overjoyed about this turning out to be what we always wanted (and pretty much need to play the game properly) the problem with missing FAQs is not exactly new and has been around forever. The most recent entry, FAQ 1.5, is not exactly what one would call great progress either. Please CB don't rush this out just because you feel you have to. And please clear up some real core issues. Don't introduce another disaster like the Shock vs NWI change and reverse. Instead maybe try to clear up once and for all how AI Beacons interact with the AD rules, instead of printing several answers for specific cases that lead to more confusion. The status of the pending statement about the Intent debate is also still missing. Pretty sure that's another promise we're still waiting for. I for one would like to see that fullfilled before holding out on any new ones.
Regardless of the reasons, I think they are closer to being on the right track. The first point of defining a mission statement for what the FAQ is should (hopefully) relieve a lot of the frustration regarding lack of transparency. Like @Teslarod says, I would love to see giving us on answer on intent as a first project. I think that would give the community a lot of confidence in the new project.
I'm not a fan of polls that publicly show votes like this one says it does for precisely this kind of reason. People don't vote the way they normally would. Myself? I think they only did this because they had to.
This is a terrible idea. No matter which way they ruled it will piss off (at best) a large minority of players and taint the whole effort.
Interesting position. This answer can be used to react on everything they are doing with rules. Why negotiating with my opponents during tourneys the way of playing "intent" while it can be pre defined by the creators? As an experienced player, who makes some demos for new players, I wan't to talk about rules which are fixed and lack any in-confidence, I don't want to say that creators are afraid of their players, and will leave issues as unfixed, open and in an unknown state.
Riiiight. Now explain precisely which rules questions and concerns you want CB to address for that. Because I'm pretty sure at least half of the argument over intent is arguing about what is and isn't included in the argument. For instance: Can you check line of sight only from existing model positions, from where your trooper has range to move, or somewhere else? Checking line of sight include checking the cover your trooper would receive from that position? That's a rules question that can be answered without wading through the 28-page "discussion" thread to figure out what the word "intent" means.
eem.... Trying to clarifying things is bad? Ok, they won't cover all "intent" issues with first FAQ, but they'll work a little bit, carefully listen to opinions, choose some they like\dislike, and will cover more issues in next FAQ ...and again, and again... Rules are complex, work on clarifying will be long and complex too. I think, it is natural... Or ... do you doubt on their ability to work hard? :)
Right but the current state of the game has two very vocal minorities of players already. CB attempting to answer the question is not a net-negative proposition as far as I can tell, it just means one of the two groups that is already slightly agitated might get more so while alleviating the other. Unless you're concerned that the group would be angry enough to stop playing the game entirely? @solkan probably has the right idea in that individual more specific issues related to intent could be cleared up relatively easily without addressing the whole issue at once.
I like this direction of more transparency. This should have happened before the whole Warcor FAQ kerfuffle, but it's welcome either way.
